Obama's Fear of a Woman; Thoughts on a Liar and a Leader

September 1, 2008

In his coronation speech Obama proved that he could lie better than most politicians. The next day his worst fear was realized. John McCain picked a strong Conservative leader with executive experience as his running mate. The news so electrified Conservatives that it totally stole the thunder from Obama's speech. Obama proved how afraid he was of her when he began his attacks on her even before the official announcement was made.

Let's discuss a few of Obama's more outrageous lies in his speech before we get into Governor Sarah Palin's strong credentials and experience.

He began his speech by fawning over Bill and Hillary Clinton. Everyone (including the Clintons) knows that he both hates and fears them. His insincerity was palpable, but he had to say the words because he still hopes to get most of Hillary's supporters to vote for him. And the Clintons had to pretend they believed him because she still wants to run again. She must appear to support Obama now, or the party bosses won't support her in the future.

So the Clinton's will pretend to campaign for Obama, hoping the whole time that he will lose so that Hillary can run in four years. And Obama will continue to lie about how much he admires her, because he desperately needs the women voters who have stuck with Hillary, and have vowed they will never vote for him.

Next he called Joe Biden "One of the finest statesmen of our time." Obama has no more respect for Biden than I do. He is not, and has never been, a statesman of any kind. A statesman is defined as "A respected leader in international affairs." Biden has no experience in international affairs. And even the members of his own party don't respect him. He was a last-minute choice forced on Obama because he has lots of experience with the good-ole-boy pork-barrel politicians that Obama needs to support him.

I'll skip his fairy tales about his roots. That's a subject that will require an entire article. But I will tell you this. Obama is far from what he seems to be and claims to be. Once America knows the truth about him, all but the most liberal Democrats will turn away from him.

He then went on to claim that everything that's wrong with the nation is George Bush's fault. He even tried to blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Then he repeated the ridiculous mantra written by a Democrat political hack with zero imagination: "A McCain presidency will mean four more years of Bush-Cheney." McCain has caused George Bush more heartburn than any other Republican senator. He has repeatedly worked across party lines to accomplish goals he felt were important for the nation. This is something that neither Obama nor Biden (considered the two most liberal pols in the senate) has ever done. They are by-the-book partisans who, if elected, will cause complete gridlock in Congress by refusing to work with Republicans.

He lied again when he deliberately misquoted McCain by saying that McCain thinks anyone who makes under $5 Million is middle class. Pastor Rick Warren asked McCain the same question he asked Obama, and it had nothing to do with defining middle class. His question was about how much someone had to make to be considered rich. McCain made it clear that the question was irrelevant, because (unlike Obama) he had no plans to raise taxes on the rich or the poor. He threw out the number of $5 Million as a joke, and even predicted that he would be misquoted. He said what he really wanted was fo every American to have the opportunity to be rich.

Predictably (because Obama is a predictable, politics-as-usual Chicago Democratic machine politician), Obama responded by saying in his speech, "Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?" The question McCain answered didn't even mention the phrase middle class, much less ask him to define it. But Obama has no problem with lying about such things. He's a liar by nature and inclination, and he's good at it. Why not use his strengths?

By the way, when Obama was asked the same exact question, he said that any couple whose family income is over $250,000 is rich. After acknowledging that only 4% of American families make over $250,000, he stated that he would raise their taxes "modestly" and use the extra money to reduce the taxes of 95% of Americans! If he took ALL the money that 4% of Americans make, he couldn't possibly lower taxes on 90% of us and he knows it. This just underscores how inexperienced Obama is.

One of his biggest lies was that "The only reason I stand before you tonight" was that he could fulfill "the promise of America." There were two reasons he stood before that convention that night. The first was that the Kennedy family, which also feared the Clintons' power, wanted to have their own boy in the White House. So they gave him exposure by letting him give a speech four years ago at the last Dem convention. And they bankrolled first his run for the Senate and now for the presidency. We keep hearing about what a great fund-raiser Obama is. The truth is that the Kennedys are so filthy rich that the millions they will pay to have someone in the White House that they can control are pocket change to them.

The other reason is Obama's huge ego. Like all socialists, he truly believes that he is better than all of us, and knows better than we what is best for us. He believes he deserves the power and prestige of the office. Unlike McCain, he has no concept of public service. He was a corrupt pol in Chicago, and, if elected, he will be a corrupt president. We will find that the corruption involved in his Revco dealings and the land that he was sold for a fraction of its cost as a political bribe are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Actually, there is one other reason he got the Dem nomination. The New York Times knew many months ago that John Edwards had committed adultery while his wife was battling cancer. Although they had the evidence, they deliberately sat on the story. Instead, they splashed lies about a supposed McCain affair all over their front page, even though there was nothing but rumors to support it. If they had run the Edwards story, he would have been forced to drop out of the race. Most of his supporters would have gone to Hillary Clinton, and she would have been the nominee. I wonder which Kennedy leaned on the Times to cover up the Edwards story?

The next big lies had to do with energy. Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress blocked drilling our own abundant oil, putting us further under the thumbs of the Muslims and Arabs that control much of the world's oil. His excuse? He claimed it would take ten years to produce results. That was twelve years ago. Today Obama is mouthing the same tired old lines. If what Clinton-Obama claim was true, we could have been benefitting from the drilling the Democrats blocked for the last two years.

But the "ten years to benefit" mantra is not true. Oil industry experts tell us that the price of oil and gasoline would drop almost immediately just on the announcement that our government was going to let us drill our own oil. One of the main reasons oil prices have risen so much is that the speculators believe the liberals will continue to block drilling. It's a simple supply and demand issue. Once they realize that the supply will increase (in other words, once McCain is elected), you will see oil prices drop sharply.

Obama also displayed his ignorance for all the world to see when, after announcing that he would continue the disastrous policies that have kept us so dependent on foreign oil, he said he would "tap our natural gas reserves." In making this ridiculous statement he echoed Democrat House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi when she stated recently that America needs to end its dependence on oil and use natural gas instead. Neither of these "leaders" who claim that they will lead us out of our "energy crisis" (a crisis caused by their own party) understands the most basic fact about natural gas - that natural gas and crude oil come from the same sources, and are usually found together.

When you drill for oil, you often get natural gas instead. When you drill in places where the geologists tell you there will likely be natural gas, you often get oil instead. So when Obama says he is against drilling, but instead wants to "tap our natural gas reserves," he proves that he doesn't even realize that you must drill in order to find natural gas. He just doesn't know what he is talking about. Real leaders don't make sweeping statements regarding our national security when they don't know what they are talking about. And make no mistake about it - our dependence of foreign oil is a serious national security issue. In making his ridiculous statements about energy, Obama has simply proved once again that he is no leader.

Then he uttered the most ridiculous lie of all. He said that as president he will end our dependence on foreign oil in ten years. Perhaps he doesn't understand the Constitution which prohibits a president from serving more than two terms. But even if he were allowed ten years, it is a virtual impossibility to do this. Every citizen who pays attention to what is happening in the nation knows that it is impossible. School children know it is impossible. Apparently the man who wants to be the leader of the free world is the only one who doesn't realize how stupid his statement was. (I take that back. Obama's true believers, the worshippers who would drink any Koolaid Obama pours either believe him, or pretend to. But they don't count. There people are not critical thinkers. They are just - worshippers.)

His answer? "And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced."

So he wants to spend $150 BILLION of our tax dollars on risky, unproven technologies (some of which are downright nutty).Â He wants to take even more of our corn to produce biofuels that cost far more than gasoline, and have already caused the prices of all kinds of food to soar to new heights. And he promises this will create new industries (presidents don't create industries, businesses do); create five million new jobs (I wonder where he pulled that number out of?); and can't ever be outsourced. The man just can't help proving his ignorance. There is no such thing as a job that can't be outsourced.Â If it can be done more cheaply in another country, that's where it will be done. Making promises he knows he can't keep is just another way of lying.

He claimed that he "stood up and opposed the war in Iraq." He never explains just where he did this brave standing up. He hopes that we are too stupid to realize that he was not a senator when the war started. He hopes that we will assume that because he is a senator now, he was a senator then, and had access to the intelligence that Congress (which voted almost unanimously to authorize the war) had. In fact, he was an unknown nobody when the war was authorized.

I don't know whether he "opposed the war" at a PTA meeting or while drinking beers with a few friends during a football game. I do know that no one ever heard about it until years later when he started claiming that he had opposed the war. He was not on the national stage, no one was paying any attention to him, and therefore he could have made the whole thing up. Or maybe he did oppose the war because his money people told him it would be a good idea, in case he was able to someday run for president.

The one thing that is certain about this whole issue is that he did not have access to the information with which to make an informed decision, so his "opposition to the war" is meaningless. It doesn't show good judgment, as he repeatedly claims. It shows that either he was an uninformed, opinionated loudmouth when the war started, or that he was an unadulterated opportunist who hoped to become president by second guessing the people who did have the information available to them.

Here are some more examples of empty promises that he knows he cannot keep (in other words, more lies). "I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries." Even someone as ignorant of the Constitution as Barack Hussein Obama must know that a president can't hire even one teacher, much less an "army" of teachers. Nor can he pay them higher salaries (higher than what?), or any salary. All of this is up to the states under the Constitution.

Then he utters the outrageous lie: that if anyone in the nation doesn't have health care, "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." Most rich people (by Obama's definition) can't afford the lavish health coverage that Obama receives as a senator. He knows full well that this is another empty promise that he can never fulfill. Therefore, it is a lie, and a cruel lie at that. Think of all the people who will believe this lie, and be bitterly disappointed when they realize it is just another in a long string of lies designed to get a hypocrite elected.

Another way he lied was by pretending to be a real American who believes in a market economy, when in truth he is a dedicated Socialist. He made this clear in his speech with some disturbing statements about business that would have made Marx and Lenin proud. He says that "businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create jobs." Businesses have only one responsibility concerning job creation, and that is to employ enough people to get the work done, so that the people who invested the money that made the business possible will make a profit and start more businesses that create jobs.

Obama supports the corrupt union officials who force business to create unneeded, make-work jobs that often result in bankruptcy for the business, and more lost jobs for the workers. Most recently he has supported union bosses in their push to take away that most sacred of American rights - the secret ballot - from union members. I spoke last week to a union member who told me that members are often intimidated by corrupt union officers who raid the pension funds and abuse the workers. If they are forced by Obama and his union cronies to vote in the open, the members will have to vote for the crooks, or face being beaten or worse.

He also believes that the government has the right to force businesses to keep unprofitable factories open. They've done that in Russia ever since their "revolution," but that is not the American way. Listen to Obama: "When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed." If he doesn't believe in government controlling businesses, what exactly was he fighting for?

I don't have time or space to list all the lies he told in less than an hour. He promised to eliminate the capital gains tax on small businesses (something the Republicans have tried to do for years, but were always blocked by the Democrats). He promised every kid in America a free college education.Â He promised more sick days and family leave. And, as I mentioned above, he promised universal health care, a new "army" of highly paid teachers, and the elimination of our use of foreign oil in ten years.

All of this would cost trillions of dollars, so of course Obama was honest and told us he would raise taxes by trillions of dollars, right? Wrong. He lied, and said he would CUT taxes for 95% of Americans. (That would be a real trick, since millions of Americans don't pay ANY income tax, and yet they receives millions of dollars in tax "rebates" every year.) So how does he propose to pay for his "promises" (lies)? He will "modestly" raise taxes on the four per cent of Americans that he considers "rich." It doesn't take a math professor to see that those numbers don't add up. This is the classic ploy of every old-time corrupt politician. Promise the electorate everything so they will vote for you, then blame it on someone else when you don't deliver on your promises.

Obama's final lie: "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly." There are only two ways to "end" a war: in victory or in defeat. He can call it whatever he wants, but the promise he made when he began his run for the Oval Office to have all of our troops out of Iraq within months of his taking office, would most certainly mean defeat. Call it a "strategic withdrawal" if you want to, Obama, but it would still be a surrender. And real Americans don't surrender.

Speaking of real Americans, what about all those American flags at Obama's convention. (Did you notice that even the Democrats didn't refer to it as the Democratic Convention? It was always "Obama's convention.") Remember that Obama (1) Refused to wear an American flag pin; (2) Refused to respect the flag by placing his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem, and (3) Painted over the American flag on his campaign aircraft and replaced it with his rainbow/one-world-government personal logo.

I guess he got the message from millions of irate patriots who questioned whether he was even an American, much less someone who was qualified to lead our nation. Suddenly we saw Obama's convention sporting enough flags to reach to the moon.Â And they weren't those little toy flags you usually see at conventions. They were BIG. And they were EVERYWHERE. Obama finally got the message (as silly as it seemed to him), that real Americans care deeply about their flag. So he got with the program, however insincerely.

Now we move to a real patriot, a woman who will be John McCain's vice-presidential running mate, but who is far more qualified on all levels than Obama to be president. The article title begins with the fact that Obama is afraid of a woman. That woman is Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. As I mentioned at the start of this column, Obama launched his first attack on Governor Palin before John McCain had time to make the official announcement.

McCain was set to introduce Palin at noon. Some reporters pieced together flight information on the various "short-list" candidates, and reported that Governor Palin was to be McCain's running mate. Within 15 minutes, without doing any research on the Governor, Obama made a hasty and unfounded attack public.

He said that McCain had chosen "the mayor of a town of 9,000, with zero foreign policy experience." If Obama's handlers knew anything about politics outside ofÂ Washington, DC, they would have stopped him before he put his foot in his mouth (yet again) by missing the fact that she is the Governor ofÂ largest state in the Union. (Although much smaller in terms of population, Alaska is twice the size of Texas, and almost six times the size of California.)

Yes, she was a mayor, and a darned good one if you ask the people she led. And she used that beginning as a stepping stone to greater and greater responsibilities until she defeated a corrupt incumbent governor, and embarked on a successful crusade to crush corruption in Alaska. (Before Palin, Alaska had the same reputation for political corruption as Chicago, where Obama learned his politics.)

As to foreign policy experience, she is the Chief Executive of a state that is uncomfortably close to Russia, and was once owned by Russia. She is also the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard, which would be our first line of defense should Russia try to do to Alaska what it recently did to another former Russian posession, the nation of Georgia. (You may say even Russia is not that crazy, but that's what everyone was saying about Georgia just a few weeks ago.) So I would put her knowledge of foreign policy way ahead of Obama, who served just 143 days as a junior senator before his arrogance persuaded him that he was capable of running a nation. His only foreign policy experience has been the blunders he has made during his campaign for the Oval Office. His mistakes during his pronouncements on international affairs made his inexperience and lack of preparation painfully evident.

As far as the other two people in this race, McCain's foreign policy experience overwhelms that of Joe Biden. And Biden was added to the Obama ticket with the express purpose of propping him up in this critical area where everyone (including his own party members) acknowledged his weakness.

So where Obama picked his running mate to try to make his ticket credible, McCain further strengthened an already strong campaign by bringing aboard someone who had vital experience that Obama, Biden and even McCain lacked: executive experience.

Rudi Giuliana put it best when he spoke Sunday on "Face the Nation." "She's vetoed legislation; she's taken on corruption in her party and won. She took on the oil companies and won. She administered a budget successfully." Obama, meanwhile, has "never run a city, he's never run a state, he's never run a business, he's never administered a payroll, and he's never led people in crisis."

Oh, by the way, Palin has an astounding 80% approval rating form the people she governs. Obama shares in the shameful 9% approval rating of Congress.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that Sarah Palin is far more qualified than is Barack Obama to be president, ask yourself this question. Who would you feel safer with as vice-president, knowing that she or he could become president at any moment: Joe "Politics-as-Usual" Biden, who has run a committee? Or Sarah "The Reformer" Palin, who has very successfully run the largest state in the United States of America?

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I would have written more about McCain's brilliant choice, but two of our fine Conservative Truth authors have written excellent articles on Governor Palin which I strongly suggest you read at www.ConservativeTruth.org. Doug Patton's piece is titled "McCain Names a Woman of Action." Here's a preview: "Unlike Barack Obama, who thought so highly of himself that he wrote two autobiographies before he accomplished anything, Mrs. Palin has raised a family, run a business, managed a city and governed a state."

Editor-in-Chief Phil Perkins spoke from his heart when he wrote, "Sorry- I'm Still Glad it's Not Hillary." He contrasts Clinton's dubious claim as a role model for women with Palin's obvious fit for that role. Here's a sneak peek: "After listening to her inspiring speech on Friday, my only regret about this selection was that it wasn't made sooner, and that voters will only have 60-plus days to learn about this extraordinary woman...Her toughness and mental agility mean that the condescending, often snide Mr. Biden will have his hands full in a debate that will hardly be reminiscent of the Lloyd Bentsen-Dan Quayle debacle of 20 years ago...Any effort by Democrats to paint Palin as a modern-day Quayle...is likely to backfire in a big way. Palin is simply too smart, articulate and accomplished to let the Democrats get away with such antics."

Tom Barrett is the Founder and Publisher of www.ConservativeTruth.org. He has written thousands of articles that have been republished in national newspapers and on hundreds of websites, and is a frequent guest on radio and television shows. His unique viewpoint on social, moral and political issues from a Biblical worldview have resulted in invitations to speak at churches, conferences, Money Shows, colleges, and on TV (including the 700 Club). Tom is also an expert speaker and writer on the subject of Biblical Finance, & is the Founder www.ChristianFinancialConcepts.com.